11. THE "MODERNIZING" OF THE WEST

SOCIAL UPHEAVAL

Post-Napoleonic monarchies worked hard to put themselves back in charge of events (1815
    Quadruple Alliance) ... resulting in the "Concert of Europe" designed to keep things
    diplomatically under reasonable control among themselves ... and a cooperative spirit to
    restore social order at home
But social reform inspired by Napoleonic France led Louis XVIII (1814-1824) was kept in
    place with a bi-cameral legislature and freedoms of press and religion.
Metternich dominates the Austrian Empire (1815-1848) in an effort to preserve imperial
    power in a very mixed ethnic-nationalist empire
Britain becomes rather reactionary under George IV (1820-1830) ... but largely unloved in
    Britain
A New Netherlands is formed uniting the Northern Dutch provinces with the Flemish
    provinces under William I (1815-1840) – to produce something of a buffer state amidst
    Britain, France and Germany
    Although William would lose the Flemish provinces with a rebellion of 1830 ... formalized in
       1839
Prussia under Friedrich Wilhelm III (1797-1840) plays a much bigger role in the German world
    ... although the 39 German states of the Germanic Bund continue under Metternich's
    Austrian leadership
Russia continues under Alexander I (1801-1825) – a strange mix of mystic, reformer, and –
    in his later years – reactionary; he creates a "Holy Alliance" but only Prussia and Austria
    join him
The Ottoman Turks under Mahmud II (1808-1839) find themselves caught up in harem
    politics and corruption of the Janissary military corps ... the latter finally disbanded by
    Mahmud; he institutes the Tanzimat or reorganization of his government – to modernize
    his rule.  But this merely gives more power to his regional governors or pashas ...
    especially Egyptian Pasha Muhammad Ali, who works hard to modernize his Egyptian
    military and bureaucracy ... and cotton industry – thus establishing his own dynastic rule
    in Egypt (lasting until 1952)
European ethnic groups under Turkish rule attempt national independency, the Wallachians
    (Romanians) failing, but the Greeks succeeding – the butchery involved in the Turkish
    putdown of the Greeks that other Europeans become involved in (1827); in 1832 the
    Turks recognize Greek independence – under Otto of Bavaria; and in 1830 the Turks were
    forced to recognize Serbian independence – in process (with early Russian help) since the
    Napoleonic Wars
Meanwhile, Germans were trying to bring their many independent states together into a
    single political union or Bund; but Metternich was able to hold off student demands for
    such a union with the many German princes signing the Carlsbad Decrees (1819) – very
    reactionary to the militant students

Upheaval in Latin America

Meanwhile, France had lost possession of Haiti during Napoleon's early years (1803 – in
    military defeat ... and with sickness and other more important matters undercutting
    French commitment to Haiti)
Spain was quickly losing its colonies in America – revolt breaking out in "New Spain" in 1810
    – with a Declaration of Independence in 1813 ... although political unity would not come
    to "Mexico" until 1821 under a new monarchy, then a republic in 1824 ... while the idea of
    a monarchy remained strong in Mexico
In 1810 Bolivar leads a rebellion in "Gran Colombia") against Spanish rule ... escaping to Haiti
    – then returning in 1821 to Venezuela to set up his new republic as its president
Brazil becomes independent only by the move of Portuguese Prince John VI in 1807 to Brazil
    to conduct Portuguese politics from there; Portuguese politics finally leads in 1822 to
    Brazilian independence under Prince Pedro (who dies in 1831)
Spanish lands in Central America declare independence as a federation in 1823 ... but break
    into separate states in 1838 – formally ending the federation in 1841
Such Hispanic independence was well supported by both Britain (for commercial reasons)
    and America (for diplomatic reasons) under the 1823 "Monroe Doctrine"

The wisely cautious rule of Louis in France ends when his reactionary brother Charles takes
    control in 1824. 
    Charles's "July Ordinances" of 1830 cutting back parliamentary representation sparks the
        "July Revolution" in France
    Talleyrand and Thiers force Charles to abdicate ... bringing Louis Philippe of Orleans to
        the throne  
    Louis Philippe poses as the "people's king;" but French prosperity actually forms his rule
Dutch King William I demands Dutch to be the royal language (exempting Wallonia) of his
    realm – infuriating the French-speaking middle and upper classes of Flanders
    Inspired by French July events, rebellion breaks out in Brussels in August (1830)
    Dutch, Prussia and Russia military come to William's aid, but France supports the Belgian
        decision to secede
    And a London Conference recognizes Leopold of Saxe-Coburg as Belgium's new king
Although Poland had been "disappeared" in the latter 1700s, Napoleon establishes a Warsaw
    Duchy
    But the Congress of Vienna simply places the Duchy (now as a kingdom) under Tsar
        Alexander
    Tsar Alexander and then (after 1825) his brother Nicholas try to respect Polish integrity
        ... both however becoming more reactionary with time
    Finally the spirit of 1830 hits the Poles ... but they are not able to fend off the Russian
        army and Poland is simply absorbed into Russia ... although Polish nationalism will
        only strengthen over time
Unloved British king George IV dies and his more liberal brother William IV takes the throne,
    reforming Parliament (1832) by getting rid of the "rotten boroughs" and awarding seats to
    citiesas well as increasing the suffrage to include middle class voters (still only a minority)
And America goes through its own "democratizing" with Jackson becoming president ... not
    changing political realities (America was already fully democratic) but heightening the
    democratic "image"
    And a "Second Great Awakening" stirs new social-political fervor across America
    Texas independence (1836) and its joining the Union (1846) lead Mexico to declare war
        on America – a war which the Mexicans lose most horribly... and which stretches
        America to the Pacific 

From the defeat of Napoleon in 1815 to the outbreak of World War One almost exactly a century later (1914) Europe experienced its first long period of relative peace in 300 years – since the onset of the Protestant Reformation in the early 1500s marking the beginning of the break-up of old Christendom.  "Relative peace" is the correct term because there would be European wars during the 1800s.  But they would be brief and limited in scope compared to the previous European dynastic wars.   To a great extent this was so because the Europeans focused their energies more on overseas opportunities for their own imperial expansion.  Also the Napoleonic wars had put such a scare in the hearts of the European monarchs and aristocrats that they realized the absolute importance of not letting their rivalries get out of control.  Thus was birthed the "Concert of Europe" – regular gatherings of European heads of state to work out their differences – a diplomatic system that guided European continental politics fairly well during the rest of the 1800s.  It was the foolish disregarding of this system in the early 20th century that would finally push Europe into two tragic rounds of a devastating rivalry (World Wars One and Two) ... which would result ultimately in Europe's fall from its position as the political center of the world. THE RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHIES The Congress of Vienna (1814-1815)  The Congress of Vienna first assembled with Napoleon's initial defeat in 1814 ... for the purpose of putting Europe back together again in a form as close as possible to the way it looked before the French Revolution.  Kings, emperors, and diplomatic delegates came from all over Europe (even Turkey) to participate in this grand event.  The major concerns were what to do with a post-Napoleon France ... and how to reorganize and distribute among the victorious European powers – in particular Great Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia – the various lands (most notably the Netherlands, Italy, Poland, western Germany, Norway and Finland) previously shaped by Napoleon's dominating influence.  A balance of power among those four major powers was their goal. This balance was the best guarantee that their own squabbles would not get out of hand again.  They had no intention of allowing the lower social orders or classes to get involved ever again in any future political conflicts arising among Europe's royalty.  Thus they signed a Quadruple Alliance (1815) promising to meet regularly (the Concert of Europe) over a period of at least twenty years to consult on any matter affecting their relationship.1 1France would join the alliance in 1818. The Congress of Vienna - by Jean-Baptiste Isabey France But treaties among Europe's kings and emperors would not take care of issues brewing within each of the countries.  France in particular would have a very difficult time with lingering domestic social forces unleashed by the Revolution.  The Bourbon dynasty was restored to the French throne, with Louis XVIII, brother of Louis XVI, now King of France.2  The 60-year old, gout-inflicted Louis XVIII had come to the throne after watching the butchering of the French royalty and much of the French aristocracy during the Revolution – and watching the success of Napoleon at the head of a popular ("the peoples") French army.  He was wise enough to draw some important conclusions for his own tenure in office: the days of royal rule, conducted without concern for the people, were over.  Consequently, Louis issued a very Liberal Charter of 1814, guaranteeing a bi-cameral legislature to govern with him ... and freedom of the press and religion.  He retained most of the governmental reforms put in place by Napoleon.  He also promised the rising middle class or bourgeoisie that he would abolish a number of key taxes.  (But he would not, could not, keep such a promise.  His treasury was empty).  Thus it was, nonetheless, that his reign proved to be a time of greatly appreciated peace. 2Ten year-old Louis XVII, son of Louis XVI, died in a Republican prison in 1795. French King Louis XVIII (reigned 1814-1824) Austria Not only was the post-Napoleonic gathering held in the Austrian capital, Vienna, but much of its work in redrawing the post-Napoleonic map of Europe was engineered by the Austrian Foreign Minister, Metternich.  It might even be said that the European diplomatic era following the defeat of Napoleon was something of the "Age of Metternich" (1815-1848). Napoleon's politics had finished off the ancient position and title of Holy Roman Emperor.  But Austria's ruler, Francis, took for himself the title of Francis I, Emperor of Austria.   Austria was however just about as complex a political entity as the Holy Roman Empire had been.  The Austrian Empire was German at its core, but spread widely so as to incorporate many other ethnic or national groupings, including Hungarians, Poles, Italians and Czechs.  With the Napoleon-inspired rise among the various ethnic groups of Europe of a distinctly popular or "nationalist" spirit, directing Austrian politics on a stable course was going to be extremely difficult for Austria's Habsburg Emperor and his Foreign Minister (and,  after 1821, Chancellor) Metternich.  Francis I – Emperor of Austria (1804-1835) (formerly Francis II - Holy Roman Emperor – 1792-1806) by Joseph Kreutzinger (c. 1815) Universalmuseum Joanneum - Graz, Austria Prince Klemens von Metternich Foreign Minister and Chancellor of the Austrian Empire (1809-1848) Great Britain Since 1810, when the British King George III had fallen rather permanently into a state of insanity, Britain had been led by George's son George as Prince Regent, and by a number of capable cabinet ministers, including notably Jenkinson (Lord Liverpool), Castlereagh, Wellington, Canning.  When George finally died in 1820 his son took the throne as George IV ... and British politics took a decidedly more reactionary turn (1820-1830).  The main issues impacting his short reign were the Catholic Question – George IV being strongly opposed to any loosening of the restrictions against Catholics in office – and his scandalous efforts to divorce his wife.  On both matters he failed to get his way, diminishing his stature considerably. Towards the end of his reign he became reclusive, being massively overweight and nearly totally blind.  When he died in 1830, there was no sadness or regret among his people.   King George IV (regent 1810-1820; king 1820-1830) Unflattering cartoon of gouty George IV ... with pictures of himself behind him The Netherlands Napoleon had replaced the Batavian Republic, established during the French Revolution, with the Kingdom of Holland – placing his brother Louis Bonaparte as its king.  With Napoleon's downfall, William Frederick of Orange, son of the last stadtholder, declared himself King of the Netherlands.  Then during the Congress of Vienna, the Catholic southern provinces – that had been exchanged back and forth among Spain, France and Austria – were combined with the northern provinces to create a new United Netherlands ... William Frederick as its King William I.   The logic behind the major powers creating this stronger entity was to put some kind of barrier state or neutral territory separating Great Britain, France and Germany from each other.  King William I of the Netherlands (ruled 1815-1840) Prussia Prussia continued after the war to be ruled (1797-1840) by Friedrich Wilhelm III.  He was not a particularly outstanding king, relying on his ministers to bring Prussia her diplomatic and military successes.3  His one burning desire personally seemed to be to impose a rigid Protestant regime over his lands, forcing the unity of the Lutherans and Calvinists as a single Prussian Protestant Church (1817) ... over which he personally presided. The Deutscher Bund (Germanic Confederation) The 39 German states of the old Holy Roman Empire (including Prussia) were loosely united (1815) as a Germanic Bund or union.  The Bund had its own legislature (the Diet) ... but was under the presidency of Austria ... and thus, to the extent it had any real power at all (which indeed was slight), was shaped by the conservative or reactionary policies of Metternich. 3The one diplomatic success most urgently sought by the Prussians in Vienna was the acquisition of Saxony.  But Austria and Great Britain, seeing danger in such a growth of Prussia, blocked this move.  Ultimately the Prussians had to give up the quest. Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia (ruled 1797-1840) Russia Russia continued under the rule (1801-1825) of Alexander I ... a strange personal mix of mystic, plus sometimes liberal (the earlier part of his reign), sometimes reactionary (the latter part of his reign), in personality.  When he came to the Russian throne in 1801, he announced himself as a liberal reformer ... though he was slow to act on these reforms, and did not get far before he proved himself to be a rather traditional autocrat.  In fact by the end of his reign he had become quite a reactionary.  It was rumored that he had come under Metternich’s powerful influence, although Napoleon’s earlier betrayal as an ally with his attack on Russia, plus popular uprisings Alexander did not understand or sympathize with (such as the Greek anti-Ottoman revolt) and growing discontent among young Russian officers, unhappy over the backwardness of Russia, played their own part in Alexander’s retreat from liberalism.  He was the one who dreamed up the idea of a "Holy Alliance" to which he invited all the participants at the Congress of Vienna to join ... largely as a defensive alliance against the kind of political culture unleashed by the French Revolution and Napoleon.  Ultimately only Austria and Prussia humored him by joining his Alliance.  France and England had no interest in getting entangled in Alexander's religious crusade – though they did participate in the Quadruple / Quintuple Alliances, with something of a parallel political agenda.   Alexander I Emperor (Tsar) of Russia (ruled 1801-1825) The Ottoman Turks From the high point of their assault (but ultimate defeat) at Vienna in 1683, the Turkish Ottoman Empire had been on a steady path of decline – militarily, politically, socially and morally.  The quality of the Ottoman sultans had deteriorated steadily, personal weakness and even insanity increasingly affecting the character of the sultanate.  The Imperial Harem of Valide Sultans (mothers of the sultans) gained dominance over the process of selecting sultans (usually minors when sultans first took their thrones) and then the Haseki Sultans or wives of the sultans took over the positions of dominance after that.  Consequently the objective of Ottoman rule ceased to be the welfare of the Ottoman Empire, but instead became the advancement of the fortunes of one or another of the harem families (run by women slaves) in competition with each other. Also the Janissary military corps had become highly privileged, wealthy, corrupt ... and largely useless as a military institution.  Sultans had been made and unmade (murdered usually) by various Janissary groups ... weakening even further the Ottoman Empire.4 Sensing the need for deep reform, in 1826 Sultan Mahmud II (ruled 1808-1839) made the decision to disband the Janissaries ... facing a bloody revolt from the Janissaries in the effort.  But he did succeed ... and began the process of rebuilding Ottoman power based on a more modern army (but a very slow process at this point). Then there was the matter of the pashas, Ottoman noblemen who were given increasing responsibility in the governance of the provinces and the Ottoman military.  As the sultan's effective governance over the empire weakened, his responsibilities were gradually taken up by a number of the pashas, thus constituting themselves and the regions of their governance as increasingly semi-autonomous realms within the empire.   Quite notable in this regard was Muhammad Ali Pasha, governor of Egypt (1805-1848).  This Albanian-born Muslim reformer – who in 1811 slaughtered off several thousand of the Mamluks who had long governed Egypt – worked hard to bring up to European standards the army and bureaucracy of Egypt (Napoleon’s activities in Egypt having been the keen motivation for doing so).  He also helped develop an industrial economy able to support such an army.  Soon, with the introduction of cotton farming into Egypt, the country began to develop independent economic and political power. In the process, Muhammad Ali established his own dynastic rule in Egypt (which would last until 1952) ... creating the question of just exactly how much was Egypt still a part of the Ottoman Empire.  The British by and large worked with his successors (now entitled "Khedives") as if they were in fact fully sovereign heads of state, able to conduct political policy in Egypt without consulting with the Ottoman sultan. The Tanzimat.  Meanwhile, Sultan Mahmud II was keenly aware of the deficiencies of the Ottoman government, and authorized a vast number of reforms of Ottoman government and society in an attempt to modernize or reorganize (tanzimat) the empire.5  French government provided the model for most of the reforms.   Yet whereas the hope of the sultans was to integrate more closely all the various Ottoman sub-communities with the sultan's rule, the reforms had something of the opposite effect, opening up to these sub-communities the idea that they had their own sovereign rights to develop as distinct peoples. Thus a greatly weakened Turkey was beset by revolts of subject peoples from within the Empire ... and assaults from without by surrounding powers (principally Russia and Austria), attacks which steadily chipped away at the outer borders of the Ottoman Empire. Greece (1821-1832) Then in 1821 it was the turn of the Wallachians (Romanians) to attempt a similar revolt.  But it was put down by the Turks.   But the Wallachian uprising had inspired the Greeks of the Peloponnesian Peninsula also to revolt at that same time.  This revolt, however, soon spread to the Greeks of Macedonia and the Island of Crete.   Greek atrocities against Turks were answered by even greater atrocities against the Greeks by the Turks (the Greek Patriarch hanged outside his residence in Constantinople ... and 27,000 Greeks executed on the island of Chios).  This then prompted European involvement.6 Sultan Mahmud then enlisted Muhammad Ali to send his army to Greece to crush the rebellion.  Muhammad Ali largely succeeded in this task (1825) ... prompting Britain, France and Russia to intervene.  In 1827 the three powers finally sent their navies to break the Turkish-Egyptian hold on Greece.  This gave the small and struggling Greek Republic some relief.   But Mahmud would not back down ... until the Russian army took the key town of Adrianople just north of the Ottoman capital at Istanbul ... and a French expeditionary force was sent at the same time to the Peloponnese (Southern Greece).  Bit by bit, protocols were signed by the Turks recognizing various aspects of Greek independence ... until full independence was formally acknowledged in the Treaty of Constantinople in 1832.  The treaty also established a monarchy for Greece, with Otto of Bavaria (actually a minor at the time, and thus putting Greece under a regency until 1837) becoming Greece's first king, replacing a short-lived Greek Republic.  His rule would face some difficulties in that Otto was a strong German in his tendency to demand strict adherence to government rulings – putting him in conflict with some of the more active former revolutionary fighters – and was a strong Catholic in a very Greek Orthodox world.  But he did get Greece's independence secured for its people ... although the Greeks could not get past the idea of continuing the revolution until all Greek lands were out from under Turkish rule, and the country had its capital back in Constantinople (Turkish Istanbul).  Troubles developed between the King and his very popular former admiral Konstantinos Kanaris, with the blowup resulting finally in Otto being forced to leave Greece in 1862.   Upon the urging of the major Western powers, the Greeks accepted Danish prince George, who converted to Greek Orthodoxy and worked carefully to win the support of the Greek people.  He would reign as a very popular king ... until his assassination by a crazed Socialist in 1913. Serbia.  Revolt against the Turks had actually started earlier in Orthodox Christian Serbia when in 1804 a peasant uprising, assisted by Christian Orthodox Russia, was able to hold off efforts of the Turks to force Serbia militarily back into the Ottoman fold.  But in 1812, Russia was being pressed deeply by Napoleon's army – thus pulled out of the game, leaving the Serbs to face the Turks alone.  For several years Serbia was made to submit ... then in 1815 revolted again, this time successful in holding off the Turks. Finally in 1830 the Turks were forced to recognize Serbia officially as an autonomous state, with the Serbian rebel leader Miloš Obrenović as the new Serbian prince. ... ruling under a new constitution as of 1835. 4The Janissaries had once (the 1400s and 1500s) been an elite fighting force made up of slaves taken from their Christian homes as boys and raised in both Islam and in a spirit of total devotion to the sultan.  They had no other stake in life and thus fought fiercely for the sultan.  But eventually (the late 1500s) the Janissaries were allowed to marry, own property and have children of their own, becoming something of an Ottoman aristocracy.  They now had political interests of their own to pursue ... and they soon became centers of corruption rather than military discipline.  The Janissaries grew so powerful that they were able to make and depose sultans at will, weakening greatly the sultanate. 5And also did his sons, Abdül Mecid I (ruled 1839-1861) and Abdül Aziz (ruled 1861-1876), who tried to keep their father's reforms moving ahead. 6It also inspired the British Romantic poet Lord Byron to go to Greece to fight for its independence ... and die there of a fever in 1824! THE GROWING SPIRIT OF REBELLION Germany University students around Germany found themselves hopeful that a united Germany might be established at the Congress of Vienna ... but were disappointed at how Germany was ultimately split into three parts: a strong Austria, strong Prussia and a weak Bund or German Confederation.  A number of student organizations (the Burschenschaften) – calling for the creation of just such a unified German fatherland – spread rapidly ... much to the distress of Metternich.  He called a congress of German princes to stand together against this growing movement.  They jointly issued the Carlsbad Decrees, agreeing to curb the freedoms of the press and of the universities ... even outlaw the use of the Burschenschaften's colors: red, black and gold (the colors of Germany's flag today!).  But all that this achieved was the driving of the student movement underground ... which then became increasingly revolutionary.  The march of the Burschenschaften to the Wartburg - 1817 ... calling for a unified Germany Spain A similar problem developed quickly in Spain after the war.  Ferdinand VII had been removed from power by Napoleon in 1808 but returned to his throne by Napoleon in 1813.  At this point Ferdinand turned into a bitter reactionary ... and what is considered today Spain's worse king in its long history.  He quickly alienated the Spanish people by rejecting the liberal constitution of 1812 ... and then re-instituted the Inquisition, shut down all newspapers except the official journal, and imprisoned or executed every liberal voice in the country.  And he seemed unable to work with any other Spanish political figure, changing – and even arresting – his ministers at frequent intervals. Spanish revolt actually started up first in the Spanish colonies in America during the Napoleonic Era.  Initially these revolts were anti-French ... though liberal in political character.  But with the restoration of Ferdinand as Spanish king, the spirit of rebellious liberalism began to turn against Ferdinand ... and take on the character of independence movements aimed at securing the colonies' freedom from Spanish authority.  Then the spirit of revolt extended to Spain itself in early 1820 among Ferdinand's troops that he had assembled in Cadiz with the intention of sending to America to suppress the colonial rebellions going on there.  Ferdinand lost the contest with his troops and was thus forced to accept the liberal constitution of 1812.   But another meeting of the Concert of Europe was called by Metternich, where it was finally decided to authorize the French to invade Spain (1823) and restore the absolute rule of Ferdinand.  In this France succeeded, ending for a while all open talk of liberal reform of Spain. The continuing independence movement in the Americas Haiti.  The French Revolution and its strong political ideals infected deeply the inhabitants of the French sugar-producing colony (known at the time as Saint-Dominique) ... inhabitants made up mostly of slaves brought generations earlier from Africa to work those extremely profitable sugar plantations.   Unfulfilled promises of freedom sent back and forth between revolutionary France and Haiti finally inspired a group of mostly Black freedmen in 1791 to take up their own cause of liberation (ending slavery altogether) ... beginning a revolt that would brew through the next ten years – led by the militarily talented Toussaint Louverture.  Indeed, slavery was pronounced at an end in 1794, confirmed by the subsequent Directorate, and then also by Napoleon.  But the actual status of the colony itself remained uncertain ... especially as Louverture switched back and forth in his loyalties to France (partly shaped by political intrigues going on within Haiti itself).   Napoleon moved in 1801 to resolve the matter by sending a huge force to Haiti to bring the colony back under full French control ... and by having Louverture and his colleagues arrested and deported to France in the process.  But the Haitians fought on, led by Louverture's lieutenant Jean-Jacques Dessalines ... the Haitian effort aided greatly by a huge outbreak of yellow-fever, which decimated the French army.  When in 1803 the French were defeated in a battle at the end of the year, it was clear that French rule in Haiti had come to an end.   Indeed, Haiti now came under the firm rule of Dessalines, who butchered the remaining French White and most of the freed-Black population in Haiti (a total of 3,000 to 5,000 executed), and then became Haiti's new emperor.  But he himself was assassinated in 1806!  Thus it was that Haiti set off down its own quite peculiar path ... one often very brutal in nature. Mexico.  When Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808, deposed the Spanish king Charles IV and placed his own brother Joseph over Spain as its new king, the Spanish colonies in America found themselves in a state of political confusion.  At first it appeared that the huge viceroyalty of New Spain (as the Spanish colony was termed at the time) was going to come under the independent governance of a group or junta of local leaders ... except that this was blocked by those (usually those originally born in Spain) with continuing Spanish loyalties.   But then a call to revolt issued in 1810 by a local priest, Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, was taken up enthusiastically by locals ... and a contest between the pro-Spain and pro-independence supporters broke out ... brutally – both sides executing captured opponents, including Father Hidalgo, who was executed in 1811.  A Declaration of Independence was issued formally in 1813 ... but the civil strife within New Spain continued nonetheless. In 1820, when Spanish Liberals were able to take control in Spain, the question of the status of the Catholic Church and the matter of a republic or a monarchy to govern Spain and its overseas holdings merely intensified the struggle in New Spain.  Finally in 1821, a compromise was agreed on in New Spain (now giving itself a local name as "Mexico") between the leaders of the two parties – declaring Mexico independent and all citizens now of equal status politically ... but Catholicism still the sole religious underpinning of the country and monarchy as the ongoing form of government.  The monarchy was, however, very soon replaced by a republic of sorts. So Mexico was independent.  But what it was beyond that was never very clear.  The military stepped in frequently to resolve personal contests at the top of the political hierarchy – making for very unstable governance ...  a problem that seemed never to go away! Central America.  At the same time the Spanish lands to the south of Mexico, set themselves up separately from Mexico as the Federal Republic of Central America (1823).  But the different regions making up the federation fell into civil war in 1838 – liberals versus traditionalists, eventually joined by just "separatists" in the fight.  But by 1841, everyone was exhausted ... and the federation was ended – with Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica acknowledged as fully independent countries.  Simón Bolívar and his Republic of Colombia (Gran Colombia).  Much the same dynamic was going on further south, in Spanish territories located in the northern part of the South American continent.  Again ... the French Revolution and Napoleon's role in upsetting deeply Spanish government both home and abroad played majorly in the developments in this region.  But here a single individual, Simón Bolívar, played the key role of being the central figure in these events. In 1810 Bolívar took up fighting in support of a Venezuelan republic that had declared its independence from Napoleonic Spain.  At one point (1815) he was forced to flee to Haiti, but returned with Haitian support and was eventually (1821) able to set up a new Venezuela republic ... actually entitled the Republic of Colombia – with Bolívar quite naturally serving as its president.  But he did not stop at that, but kept up his conquests by liberating other lands in the region – Ecuador (1822), Peru (1824) and Bolivia (1825).  These were then merged into what was termed "Gran Colombia." However political differences developed between Bolívar (a strong centralist) and former supporters who wanted greater autonomy in the regions ... ultimately even independence on the part of Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, etc., that made up Gran Colombia.  In the dispute, he lost control of those regions, was nearly assassinated (1828), and – tired of the whole mess – finally resigned (1830) ... and soon died. But here too what followed was simply government by various military-supported autocrats (caudillos) ... who, however, would never attain the respect and authority that Bolívar had possessed.  But it was all the government that these new states were to know ... for the longest time (even up to today). Brazil.  As a colony, Brazil played a role quite different from that of the Spanish colonies when in 1807, to escape Napoleon's aggressions, the Portuguese Prince Regent João (or John) VI moved himself and his court to Brazil's Rio de Janeiro ... making Brazil the center of Portuguese operations.  And in doing so, João went on to develop Brazil's political institutions to a rather high degree of sophistication.  And then, to the great irritation of the Portuguese back home in Portugal, when the Napoleonic threat was over in 1815, there seemed to be little interest in the royal court in leaving the vast lands of Brazil to retake residence in the much smaller Portugal.  The idea of making Brazil and Portugal co-equals in the Portuguese political system did not please the domestic Portuguese either. But the Liberal Revolution in Portugal (1820) brought to power those able to force João to return to Portugal to resume rule there (1821).  Nonetheless, he left his son Pedro to continue as Regent in Brazil.  Then also, when the Portuguese revolutionaries tried to return Brazil to the status of being a mere Portuguese colony ... the Brazilians resisted strongly – led by Pedro.  The following year (1822) the Brazilians then made their country a fully independent "Empire" ... with Pedro as their emperor.  But Portuguese military efforts to counter this move did not work well ... and the Portuguese court finally (1826) recognized Brazil as being fully independent. Of course independent Brazil faced some of the same contentious issues as the newly independent Hispanic states around them:  liberalism versus traditionalism.  Keeping Brazil from falling into civil war exhausted Pedro, who died in 1831 ... leaving Brazil in the hands of a Regency while his son remained in his infancy.  Unsurprisingly, the political turmoil merely continued during this period.  Finally in 1841, Pedro II was crowned ... way before his adult years. But overall, Brazil prospered and remained fairly stable politically during the 58-year reign of Pedro II ... until in 1889 the Brazilian military conducted a coup, establishing a Brazilian republic. The Monroe Doctrine (1823).  Meanwhile (going back to the 1820s), during all this turmoil brought on by the French Revolution and Napoleon's Empire, there was no way that either Spain or Portugal were ever going to allow the independence of their colonies ... and thus they both fought back fiercely against the independence movements going on there.   But all of this confusion had allowed the very entrepreneurial British to quietly slip into the American dynamic ... to develop strong commercial ties of their own with these colonies.  Thus Britain had no intention of ever letting their American clients be drawn back into the mercantilist privileges7 of Spain and Portugal. But, most cleverly, the British let the American President Monroe state the case for both Britain and America in this matter:  America would not let any European power restore its colonial empires on its side of the Atlantic.  That might have appeared as an incredibly stupid pronouncement coming from a very recently established and untried republic.  However ... it was well understood by all that the might of the British navy was what stood behind this "Monroe Doctrine" (1823), giving it its muscle. 7Mercantilism:  where colonies were permitted to trade only with the imperial mother country ... and no one else. Ferdinand VII of Spain (ruled  briefly in 1808 and then 1813-1833) September 16, 1810 - Father Hidalgo begins the Mexican independence movement (completed in 1821) American President James Monroe - author of the "Monroe Doctrine" protecting Hispanic-American independence from a Spanish reaction (actually backed up by British naval power) THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1830 At this point the sole agenda of the Congress of Europe – now including only Austria, Russia and Prussia as its mainstay – was the defense of the autocracy of these three powers.  But that was going to come under increasing challenge from liberal quarters. France Unsurprisingly, there had existed in France a very anti-Revolutionary, anti-Napoleonic mood amidst the returned nobility ... and even in some parts of the French countryside.  Louis had tried to walk a line of moderation between those French with fond memories of the Empire and those French with a burning hatred for everything and everyone Napoleonic.  But he was old and sick ... and up against his younger brother, who was a leader of the anti-Napoleonic reaction.  Worse, Louis had no heirs himself and it looked as if the throne would pass to his younger brother upon his death. Indeed, only ten years on the throne, Louis died in 1824 ... and his brother Charles X became France's king.  Unfortunately, Charles was too thick-headed to understand what his older brother had understood ... and proceeded to try to move the Bourbon monarchy back to the status it possessed prior to the Revolution.  The only people this would please was the small group of ultra-royalists among the returning émigrés.  But Charles's actions greatly alienated much of the rest of French political society – a large section of France comprising the middle and upper middle class ... and the citizens of Paris of all social orders. Finally bringing things to an explosive head, Charles foolishly responded to the growing opposition to his rule by publishing the "July Ordinances" of 1830, which dissolved a newly elected Chamber of Deputies (which had returned an even larger number of liberals opposed to Charles), and called for new elections ... allowing only a very small number of voters to participate.  A number of Paris journalists protested his move ... and were soon joined by a Paris mob filling the streets.  Soldiers sent out by Charles to suppress the mob were attacked savagely by the protesters ... with many soldiers soon joining them. Fearing that all of this was heading toward a restoration of Republican France, French political leaders Talleyrand8 and Thiers put before the Chamber of Deputies the name of Louis Philippe, Duke of Orleans, as a new king to replace Charles X (who was forced to step down) ... entitling him as "king of the French by the will of the people" (rather than the old Bourbon formula: "king of France by the will of God").  Thus the Orleanist wing of the old Bourbon monarchy took power in France ... with Louis Philippe I posing himself as the "bourgeois king" (mostly an act!).   The uprising (which had never extended outside of Paris) quickly settled down.  Overall the French were enjoying a period of rising prosperity brought on by the fifteen years of peace and were now relatively content with the shape of things politically in France. 8Although this period is known as "the Age of Metternich," Talleyrand was himself a most outstanding individual in the field of European politics during this same period.  He began his political life as a Catholic priest, representing the Church in the court of Louis XVI.  He represented the First Estate (Church) in the Estates-General of 1789.  Then, becoming anti-clerical, he joined the Jacobins!  He was sent to England in 1792 to represent the new French Republic ... and remained there when France began moving toward the Reign of Terror.  He was forced out of England in 1794 and went to America, staying there for two years. The new Directorate permitted him to return to France ... and then appointed him as its Foreign Minister!  But he soon became a supporter of Napoleon, aiding Napoleon in taking control of France from the Directorate.  And thus he became Napoleon's Foreign Minister!  But his relationship with Napoleon cooled when he found himself disagreeing with some of the Emperor's diplomatic decisions, and he resigned his position in 1807.  Then in 1814, Talleyrand played a key part in the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy ... and was appointed as France's chief negotiator at the Congress of Vienna.   However for the next fifteen years he stepped out of the limelight of French politics.  But he re-entered the spotlight in arranging for Louis-Philippe to take the French throne in 1830. Today his name mostly evokes the image of a cynical, self-serving politician willing to pull almost any deal that would advance his career.  But actually it was the gain of France that seemed to inspire most of his craftiness ... behind and above all else that he did. French King Charles X (reigned 1824-1830) Eugène Delacroix – Liberty Leading the People (1830) oil on canvas - commemorates the July Revolution of 1830 Paris, Musée du Louvre Events at the Hôtel de Ville (left) during the July Revolution – Joseph Beaume "Citizen-King" Louis-Philippe of France (reigned 1830-1848)  - by Franz Xaver Winterhalter - 1841 The King is depicted at the entrance of the Gallerie des batailles which he had furnished in the Chateau de Versailles. An older Talleyrand (Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord Adolphe Thiers – French Prime Minister (1836-1839) Belgium The people of the southern provinces of the new Kingdom of the Netherlands had, in earlier generations, been brought back forcibly to Catholicism.  This alone made them quite different from their heavily Protestant northern neighbors.  Also, the upper and middle classes of this region spoke French rather than Dutch ... and were greatly upset when their new king, William I, demanded that all government work be done in Dutch (exempting only the French-speaking Walloon districts bordering France). William's high-handed ways so upset these "Belgians" that in August (partially inspired by events in nearby Paris) protesters took to the streets of Brussels as a result of an opera which stirred Belgian feeling to a point of high indignation.  Soon a street mob developed, and began looting and pillaging the city through the night.  A group of alarmed citizens formed a Council of Regency and proposed a separation of Belgium and Holland, with the king's brother as viceroy of Belgium.  William reacted to this challenge by sending an army to Brussels ... which ran into such stiff resistance that it was forced to withdraw.  William was now willing to agree to the Council's proposal.  But it was too late.  A Provisional Government had been formed in Brussels.   At this point the other powers of the Concert of Europe weighed in on the matter ... Prussia and Russia ready to invade, but France's Louis Philippe threatened to counter their move.  At a meeting in London the Big Five powers called for an armistice ... then moved to recognize Leopold of Saxe-Coburg as the king of Belgium.  The Dutch nonetheless sent an army to Belgium ... only to be countered by a French army and a British-French blockade of the Dutch coast.  William now had lost the contest.  But it would not be until 1839 that he would finally recognize the independence of Belgium.   Leopold Saxe-Coburg dressed as a Russian general – by Geo Dawe (1823-1825). Later, he become "Leopold I – King of Belgium"  –  1831-1865; he is also the uncle of Albert, Prince-Consort of England (his nephew Albert is married to Queen Victoria) St-Peterburg, Winter Palace War Gallery King Leopold I of Belgium by Franz Xaver Winterhalter - 1839 Leopold I and family:  Queen Louise-Marie, Crown Prince Leopold, Prince Philippe, Princess Marie-Charlotte Poland Not every such event in Europe ended up so successfully.  Poland had once been a powerful society (1500s and 1600s) but decline had set in during the 1700s and the Poles found their society carved up in three different stages of partition (1772, 1793 and 1795), being completely absorbed or "disappeared" by the surrounding major powers, Russia, Prussia and Austria with the last partition.  But Polish patriots fought alongside Napoleon in his wars against those same three powers ... and Napoleon rewarded Polish support in 1807 by setting up a Duchy of Warsaw.  But at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 the duchy was re-designated as a kingdom ... with the Russian Tsar as its king!   At first Alexander respected the more liberal character of the Polish society and state, even allowing the Poles to continue to keep their own flag, currency, military uniforms, and particular political organization.  But as Alexander turned more conservative – even reactionary – he began placing tighter restrictions on Polish society.  When his brother Nicholas I took the Russian throne in 1825, he at first attempted to relax the restrictions ... until an attempt on his life in 1829 turned him also towards repression of the people under his rule.   Towards the end of the following year the 1830 spirit of rebellion spread to Warsaw, then to the whole of Poland.  At first the Poles were able to hold off an invading Russian army.  But the Poles' own lack of a unified command structure undercut their effort and in 1831 Warsaw fell to the Russians, ending the revolt.  At this point Nicholas declared the Polish monarchy expired, with Poland now simply absorbed into the Russian state.  However, although this stopped Polish independence activity, it did not end the Polish dream of national independence.  In fact it served in the coming years to make the dream even stronger in the hearts of Polish nationalists.   The Partitioning and official disappearance of Poland (in different stages) The Russian attack on the Polish forces at Warsaw - 1831 Political reform in Great Britain Whereas the House of Lords was made up of high Church officials and the British aristocracy, the House of Commons supposedly was a more "democratic" part of the British Parliament.   Since even the Middle Ages, two members were elected from each of the counties and towns (boroughs) making up the kingdom.  But over the centuries economic fortunes had changed and many of the towns had disappeared, yet still sent two representatives to Parliament ... whereas major industrial centers that had grown up in the past century (Manchester, Birmingham, etc.) had no representation whatsoever.  Furthermore a few landowners of the empty boroughs (‘rotten boroughs') controlled a number of seats; other seats were bought and sold like clothing goods.  The whole system therefore actually ended up representing only a tiny portion of the entire British population. With the democratic spirit spreading across the European continent in 1830, the mood soon reached the British shores as well.  In 1830 the unloved George IV died and his place was taken by his more liberal-minded brother, William IV ... who called for election, which brought to power a reformist Whig majority led by Earl Grey.  After much action back and forth, a reform bill was finally passed into law in 1832.  It wiped out the rotten boroughs, gave new representation to the industrial cities and made voting standards uniform across the kingdom.  It increased the suffrage, bringing the comfortable middle class into the voting public ... though it still set voting qualifications high enough that it excluded the multitudes of industrial and farm workers making up the bulk of the British population.  Nonetheless, this marked a significant step forward toward full democracy in Britain. William IV (ruled 1830-1837) The expansion of "Democratic America" The Jacksonian "Democratic Revolution" (the 1830s).  The vote of the common people (at least for members of America's House of Representatives) was not a new thing for the Americans.  But with the development of Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party (shaped and directed in its activities by Jackson's assistant, Martin Van Buren), America was understood to be led no longer by aristocrats (particularly the Virginians – Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) or the Bostonians (the Adams, father and son) ... but by "one of the people" – Andrew Jackson. Actually, Jackson was himself of aristocratic background ... but played to the idea that he was just an ordinary American.  And indeed ... the common people, muddy boots and all, invaded his presidential reception in 1829 (smashing dishes and furniture in the process) to get close to their war hero and now president, Andrew Jackson. And so a new understanding filled the political atmosphere of America ... certifying the fact that politics belonged to the people themselves ... and not just a group of select aristocrats.  Politics could thus get very vulgar at times ... part of its being so "democratic"!  But America was very proud of itself in taking the lead in this matter of "democratizing" their society's politics. The "Second Great Awakening."  Behind this peculiar self-development of "Democratic America" was a renewing of the popular spirit … one that had guided America through the dark days of its war of independence from British King George III.  But this was a spirit then that had, like most things when a crisis is over, settled back into a more mundane nature – a humanistic spirit that sees itself guided by reason and logic rather than unpredictable passion … and unpredictable sources, such as God himself. The French found this American spirit most interesting, because it was so different from what was the norm back in Europe.  This curiosity brought Alexis de Tocqueville and his associate Gustave de Beaumont to America in 1831 to study America more closely.  Then in 1835 and 1840 Tocqueville published his two-volume findings, Democracy in America, noting not only the basically egalitarian spirit of the American people (easily challenging those who would take on airs of superiority), something he understood derived from America's basically Puritan origins.  He also noted the restless and purpose-driven heart of the American individual – who however (from his point of view) tended to move on to new challenges before completing the old ones!  He also was most alarmed at how the slavery issue was crushing the American soul, predicting (correctly) that failure to soon resolve this issue would most likely lead to civil war in America. But the American world of cool reason and logic supposedly characteristic of the comfortable Americans soon came under attack.  A huge economic depression that hit America in the period 1837-1841 undercut deeply the idea that life basically worked along quite rational lines.  Such an event seemed at the time to be unprecedented.  Thus, even in the East, talk grew that America was facing God's great Day of Judgment, the long-awaited return of Christ to Earth – to judge all humankind.  Americans needed to get their act together spiritually. Also … apparently masses of Americans, especially those that had crossed the Appalachian Mountain Barrier and were heading ever-deeper into Indian territory, were not seeing things in America's supposedly humanistic fashion.  Here on the Western frontier, hunger, disease, and angry Indians awaited these bold souls willing to step into such an unpredictable world.  But comforting them was their strong Christian faith that they were answering a call that God himself had put on them … a covenantal call to advance their Christian realm into the darker world of the American interior.  And they understood this challenge as one calling them to deal with this world in front of them but also the world within themselves.  They needed to cleanse themselves of their own sins so that they could find greater success in taking on this larger life – and ultimately get themselves right with God. To cultivate and direct this strong American spirit was a range of individuals, most of them simple men who took up the call to pastor (preach, teach, baptize, pray) the wide-ranging collection of frontiersmen and their families.  But a large number also were just as active in the more settled East.  There were also a number of "prophets" who stepped forward to offer "updated" versions of the Christian gospel, also collecting a huge following in the process. By far the most active were the Methodist circuit riders, who braved weather, hunger, and Indians to reach the scattered settlements of the frontiersmen with their preaching and counsel.  These were ordinary men with extraordinary commitment, fueled by a religious fire that actually started back in England at the turn of the century and had been brought to America under the guidance of America's Methodist Bishop Francis Asbury, a man himself who in a period of 1784-1816, preached some 16,000 sermons over a course of as much as 275,000 miles on horseback, and who grew the American Methodist community from 1,200 to 214,000 – with eventually 700 preachers to guide this huge flock.  He was followed by an even greater number of circuit riders, some 3,500 of them, and nearly 6,000 Methodist pastors, who by 1840 had this community up to 750,000 members in size, the largest denominational community in America. Even the Black community got in on the act, with the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) and AME Zion communities developing among free Blacks in Philadelphia and New York City.  These two groups would play a huge role after the Civil War (1861-1865) in shaping the religious lives of the multitudes of newly freed slaves. And the folks back East were also invited to the world of camp meetings, largely designed by the Presbyterian pastor Albert Finney, who turned these meetings into well organized "revivals," ones that would become something of a model for other revivalists – in his days and even since then.   So active was his revivalist ministry that it seemed that there was no more work to be done in up-state New York.  It had become, what Finney himself termed, "a burned-out district"! Then there was the most unusual development with the up-state New Yorker William Miller, who was able to bring a huge number of followers to purify themselves in preparation for the "Advent" or Second Coming of Christ ... which he predicted would bring the "Rapture" in April (then October) of 1844.  But disappointment did not discourage his followers – who reformed themselves under the guidance of the female prophet Ellen White as the "Seventh-Day Adventists," a group that would grow internationally as well as nationally. Also arising from the same "burned-out district" of New York was an even stranger quasi-Christian movement:  The Latter-Day Saints, or "Mormons."  Its founder Joseph Smith claimed angelic direction (1827) in getting his new religious movement started up, complete with its own Bible (The Book of Mormon) and its own way of preparing for the second coming of Christ.  But so radically different was his "Mormonism" that his movement not only grew monumentally in size, it succeeded in stirring up equally monumental opposition from Christian neighbors.  Thus he had to move his huge community several times, before he himself was killed in another such confrontation (1844).  Ultimately a member of his staff, Brigham Young, took the bulk of the Mormon community (there would be other communities elsewhere as well) all the way to Utah, and there set up his "Zion" headquarters for what would become a huge international religious community. There was, however, a calmer version of America's Second Great Awakening, arising amidst the more traditional American denominations ... principally the Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Dutch Reformed, although many Methodists (and Baptists) would soon join this development.  Two areas of action grew huge within these Christian communities:  the founding of colleges to further the world of Christian knowledge and the creation of missionary societies to spread the word – even abroad.  Thus it was that jointly these communities created the American Bible Society (to put a Bible in every American home), the Sunday-School Union (to develop Biblical literacy among America's children and youth), the American Tract Society (offering an easy explanation of Christianity's basic themes and doctrines), etc., etc.  Equally amazing was the number of Christian seminaries and colleges that were established during this period, some 500 of them by the mid-1800s.   Literacy and knowledge were never intended to be the privilege of just the upper ranks of society - as was the case back in Europe.  This was a privilege available to any American seeking such a goal in life.  America's democratic sense of the basic equality of all its people depended on such opportunities being available to one and all.  You would have to work for it.  Equality would not just be handed to you on a silver platter.  But it was there, freely available to any and all who sought it.  And Americans were definitely just such seekers! And that was America spiritually in the 1830s and 1840s! The Mexican-American War (1846-1848).  Indeed, it was the urge of the American people themselves rather than the designs of any government that had long been the foundation of America's birth, growth and ultimately substantial national power.  And this democratic instinct driving America was not likely to weaken ... as long as there was land to the West for Americans to settle. Texas would play a particularly key role in this matter at this point (1830s) ... as thousands of Americans poured into what the neighboring Mexicans viewed as a northern province of theirs (but sparsely inhabited by Mexicans themselves at the time).  Ultimately this American "intrusion" brought war between the two groups ... with the Texas-Americans soundly defeating the army of Mexican caudillo Santa Anna in 1836.  Mexico was thus forced to acknowledge Texan independence. But then the matter arose as to whether Texas would stand as an independent nation or as an add-on to the United States, with the Texans soon resolving the matter in favor of the latter.  But this presented a huge problem for the U.S. government... fully understanding the outrage that Mexico would feel if Texas were to join the Union. After being avoided as an issue by American presidents for the next ten years, President Tyler and the U.S. Congress moved finally (1846) to accept Texas's request for admission to the Union ... bringing Mexico to immediately issue a formal declaration of war against the U.S.  But to the surprise of everyone (including most Europeans) the Mexicans were quickly and decisively beaten in various battles ... not only in Texas but in all of Mexico's northern territory – reaching even to California.  In fact, by September of 1847, American troops found themselves fully in command of Mexico. Thankfully both Congress and President Polk were wise finally to award Mexico a $15 million payment for the territory taken from Mexico, softening the blow greatly ... and gaining formal Mexican acceptance of the transfer of lands.  This piece of diplomacy would soon prove to have been very, very important ... for in short order, defending the American claim to these Western territories in the face of a Mexican counter-move would have made a huge crisis hitting America at the time (the American Civil War, 1861-1865) all the more disastrous for the American Union. Jackson (President 1829-1837) Martin Van Buren Jackson's presidential reception - 1829 2nd Great Awakening camp meeting Santa Anna surrenders to the Texans - Battle of San Jacinto - 1836 American troops in Mexico City - 1847 THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 France Louis-Philippe had cultivated his reputation as "citizen king" ... yet at the same time he was as absolutist in his heart as any other European monarch of his day.  His prime minister, Guizot, skillfully kept a working majority in the French parliament in support of the king's increasingly restrictive policies, which clearly favored the prosperous industrial upper middle class ... at the expense of the French working class.   But the French working class – which had been the backbone of the 1830 Revolution, but which had been denied any political fruits from its sacrifices – was not unaware of its political rights ... and importance ... in the French scheme of things.  French intellectuals attracted to the lofty ideas of "socialism" had been clear about the key role that the working class was destined to play in the industrial society taking shape in France.  Being hounded by the French police, secret societies began to be formed by such socialists ... and also by republicans hoping to see France returned to the status of a republic.  All this (plus numerous attempts at assassination of the king) made Louis-Philippe and Guizot all the more resistant to any call for political reform. By mid-late 1847 even members of the middle class began to gather at special banquets to discuss the need for immediate reform.  Then in February 1848 a massive banquet was scheduled to take place in Paris ... though Guizot convinced involved members of the legislature to call off the event.  But it was too late – for things began to move forward anyway:  the streets of Paris were filling with people demanding Guizot's dismissal.  The National Guard was called out to disperse the rowdy crowds ... but refused to go against the crowds, with some guardsmen even joining them.  The panicked king then dismissed Guizot ... but crowds gathered at Guizot's home, protected by army regulars.  Shots were fired and some 50 individuals were shot ... then carried through the streets on carts that night.  The next day a huge mob gathered at the king's Tuileries Palace ... causing Louis-Philippe to flee the country in disguise. A new Republic was declared by a provisional government ... and, following the lead of the socialist Louis Blanc, the new government proposed – as a matter of the "right to work" – the creation of workshops for the unemployed.  At this, thousands of unemployed workers gathered in Paris for jobs ... greatly exceeding the government's real ability to set up workshops.  Instead, the government agreed to pay the unemployed a small financial compensation ... which (because of this generosity) by early summer had swelled the ranks of the unemployed to over a hundred thousand!  This not only threatened the treasury of the new Republic, but left industries unable to hire workers, who were content to live off the small dole rather than the earnings of their labor. The effort to bring some control over the program by setting tighter qualifications for the dole now produced its own political problems in the Paris streets.  The Republic's military was called in to disperse angry crowds, the soldiers fired on them (and they fired back), with over ten thousand people killed or wounded in the encounter.  Martial law was extended over the country ... while the Republican politicians quickly prepared the new Republican constitution – which provided for universal adult male suffrage. Finally in December of 1848 elections were held ... and Louis Napoleon, nephew of the Emperor, was elected by a huge majority of the French voters.  A new era had begun in French life. François Guizot The Barricades at Rue Soufflot - June 25, 1848 - by Horace Vernet The Dead at the Barricade of the Rue de la Mortellerie - June 1848 - by Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier Louis Napoleon - President of the Second French Republic (1848-1852) The failed effort at Rome In Italy, revolutionary radicals were demanding the creation of a new Roman Republic - replacing the Papal States. In the chaos, Pope Pius IX's Minister of Justice Peligrino Rossi was assassinated (November 1848).  Also, the Pope’s protective French troops had just been called back to France to deal with the chaos there ... leaving the Pope’s own small army unable to hold back a much larger Italian army intent on taking Rome.  At this point Pius escaped to Naples ... and the revolutionaries announced the formation of their Roman Republic (also November 1848).  The hope was clearly that this Roman Republic would be the springboard for an even larger Italian Republic. The Republicans authorized the pope to return to Rome to continue his religious duties ... even though his political role as Head of the Papal States was to be ended.  But the pope was not interested in the compromise.  Indeed, in retaliation, Pius threatened excommunication of those Catholics supporting the Republic ... even of those who simply voted in the Republic’s new elections (there was a 50% turnout however). But newly elected French President, Louis Napoleon decided to come to the aid of the Pope and sent a huge French army (along with some Spanish troops) into Italy (April 1849).  After a month’s siege at Rome, the Republicans agreed to a truce ... which reestablished the pope’s political powers - although Pius would not return to Rome until the French troops agreed to full support of the papacy.   These troops would indeed continue in that role ... until 1870 when another round of revolutionary events in Europe led to the creation of the Kingdom of Italy – by many of the same individuals who had directed the effort to establish the Roman Republic in 1848-1849. The Austrian Empire Meanwhile, events in France had spread quickly eastward to Vienna, inspiring equally dramatic events there.  In March (1848) university students and craftsmen joined forces to march on the emperor's palace calling for Metternich's resignation.  When members of the court aristocracy joined in the demand, Metternich realized that he had lost his political grounding ... and escaped to England.  When the Emperor agreed to institute a number of liberal reforms, the revolt seemed to have achieved its objectives. At the same time the French events had also stirred up a similar spirit of revolt in Prague ... where demands for liberal reform of the imperial government took on strongly Czech nationalist tones.  Now hard pressed by this spreading spirit of revolt, the Emperor agreed to the demand to make Czech co-equal with German. Hungary was next.  Protesters gathered in Budapest demanding a constitution and parliament of their own ... which the Emperor agreed to institute.   But then when other minorities living within the Hungarian realm (Serbs, Croatians, Rumanians) asked for similar rights, it was the Hungarians who refused ... causing war to breakout between Hungary the minorities. In Austrian-controlled northern Italy similar events unfolded.  With the fall of Metternich in March, an Italian mob in Milan forced the Austrian garrison to evacuate the city. Venice then joined the revolt, then all of Lombardy and the Tuscany province ... with Charles Albert, king of Sardinia-Piedmont, sending troops to aid his fellow Italians.  Various Italian states put themselves in the hands of Charles Albert ... and the Italian coalition met the Austrians in battle.  The results were something of an Italian retreat ... leaving Italian land in the hands of the Austrians.  This in turned infuriated the Italians ... and ultimately shamed Charles Albert.  He then simply abdicated, leaving his government in the hands of his son Victor Emmanuel ... who now took a tougher stand against the Austrians.  Now the Austrians found themselves not doing very well in the contest with the new "Italian" leader, Victor Emmanuel.     The Habsburg empire seemed to be crumbling everywhere.  So distressed was Emperor Ferdinand over all this that he abdicated in December, elevating his 18-year-old nephew, Franz Joseph, to the Austrian emperorship.9 9This would be the beginning of the 68-year reign of Franz Joseph, which would last until his death in 1916. Charles-Albert of Sardinia (ruled 1831-1849) Victor Emmanuel II    (ruled 1849-1878)   Prussia Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm IV (who had come to power in 1840) had made it clear that he ruled by the will of God alone.  But with the retreat and fall of royal absolutism all around Europe, the king found himself facing the same demands in Berlin for liberal reforms of his government.  With seemingly no other options he yielded ... promising such reforms ... meanwhile waiting for the tide to turn.  Which it soon did.  Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm IV (ruled 1840-1861) The Berlin uprising - March 1848 Fighting at the Berlin Barricades The Frankfurt Assembly A major hope of the Liberals calling for constitution and written guarantees of citizens" rights focused on the German Confederation which gave its authority over to a constitutional assembly voted on by a large German electorate.  This Assembly gathered at Frankfurt to begin the writing of a new constitution for a united Germany.  Although it was somewhat slow going, the serious hitch in the program did not appear until the Assembly was ready to finalize its works in early 1849.  Only one question remained: who would reign over Germany as a constitutional monarch: a Hohenzollern (Prussia) or a Habsburg (Austria)?  The Habsburgs were not willing to separate their non-German territories from a new Germanic empire ... and thus they would not take the position at the head of the new German state.  By the time in April when the Assembly turned to Prussian king William IV to take over the new constitutional Germany, William had recovered much of his lost political strength and made it very clear that he would not head any kind of a state that gave authority to its ruler through the popular will.  He would answer to God and God alone. The Assembly at Frankfurt - 1848 The Reaction Now without any prospect of a king to lead their new state, the whole constitutional project began to fall apart.  Although many German states had signed onto the project, four major German states (in addition to Prussia) announced that they would not accept this arrangement.  With that the Frankfurt Assembly dissolved. But that was not the end of the matter.  William not only shut down the Prussian Parliament, but after having subdued protests in his own land, sent Prussian troops to crush the rebellions in some of the other German states.  Thousands of liberal reformers were forced to flee Germany; those who failed to do so were imprisoned. And much the same event occurred in Habsburg Austria.  Austrian troops even bombarded their own capital into submission, and then turned on the Hungarian reformers.  When the Hungarians fought back fiercely Tsar Nicholas sent Russian troops to help the Austrians to crush the new Hungarian Republic and force Hungary back into the Habsburg Empire as an Austrian province.   Likewise the Austrians were able to retake (brutally) the territory they had just lost in Italy ... leading the aged king of Piedmont, Charles Albert to turn his throne over to his son, Victor Emmanuel, hoping that this would soften peace terms with Austria.   Nonetheless, despite this huge victory of monarchical absolutism, Victor Emmanuel kept his father's liberal constitution of Piedmont in place ... thus preserving for him the leading position in the hearts and minds of Italian liberals, who continued to dream of an independent Italy.   Go on to the next section:  The Urge to Rationalize and Control Social Dynamics   Miles H. Hodges